Should the President Pull Out the Troops?

[SkinWalker]

Okay... a little bird suggested this topic to me and I've been passive long enough, so I'm going to start some crap topics.

 

There's three sides to this issue as I see it: 1) Pull out all the troops and get out of Iraq as soon as possible. 2) stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to get the job down. 3) Pulling out of Iraq is ideal, but perhaps not possible due to the mess we've made.

 

Do you think the president (be it Bush or someone else) should pull US Troops out of Iraq? Explain.

 

I'll reserve my thoughts on this until later, but in looking at the issue as a whole, our continued involvement in Iraq means continued counte-involvement by those that would be our enemies. It seems clear that the Al-Qaeda/insurgent activities are targeting western forces and western institutions (such as Iraqi manned police forces, etc.). In addition, the recent allegations of abuse will certainly have an affect on the remaining time our troops spend on the ground there.

[toms]

No.

 

Pulling them out would create a power vacuum and destabilise the area even more.

 

Everyone told Bush exactly what would happen if he went in, he went in anyway, it has all happened. - He has to live with the results, even if it means watching the body bags coming home over the months.

 

The only way i can see to start to sort out the mess is to slowly transfer control of peackeeping activities to the UN and get troops from other countries to take over from the US so they can phase out their troops.

Unfortunately, this means that troops from other countries are going to be getting the flak and deaths that should, by rights, go to the americans.

However it is never going to stabilise while there are US troops (and by association british troops) on the ground, they are too despised in that area.

 

A lot will rest on whether the new government (when set up) is seen as legitimate by the population, or as a puppet government under the control of (and kept in power by) the US troops.

 

After all, the main spark in the creation of Al Quaida was supposed to be the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia supporting an undemocratic and unpopular government.

And didn't the UK/US put in a government of iraq after the 2nd world war (which was seen as illegitimate and the pawn of the west). Wasn't it this government that Saddam overthrew as part of a popular uprising? Not a good precendent.

 

Al quaida wouldn't be in iraq if it wasn't for the US being in iraq, but just pulling them out now isn't going to get Al Quaida to leave.

 

One thing i do think is necessary is that they get some form of muslim and "non-western" troops in as soon as possible, so that there are troops in the area that are seen as more neutral or sympathetic and not as US cronies.

 

Harsh and unpaletable as it is to say, a small part of me thinks that (in the wider scheme of things) it is good that a number of US troops have started to be killed in iraq.

I think that their massive military and temporary uni-super-power status had lead them into a feeling of invunerability. A feeling that they could invade any country without repercussions or without approval from the UN. The ease they won in affganistan only re-enforecd this view (especially with Bush & Co.).

Having a load of soldiers die might be a necessary reality check that will make them consider the consequences in the future.

 

War is unpleasent, it isn't a good idea to forget that.

(Isn't that the basis of some star-trek episode???)

[Crazy_dog no.3]

No. He started a mess, he should deal with it, even if it does mean the lives of soldiers.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3

No. He started a mess, he should deal with it, even if it does mean the lives of soldiers.

... that's... kind of weird logic, he makes a mistake and others should suffer for it?

 

I'm not sure if I should ask... *walks off confused*

[MasterN64]

No,

 

Now, I have been a Republican and I supported Bush at the election. And I still support him (however I am not old enough to vote). Bush went in there because he was informed by the U.S. Intelligence that there was a good chance that there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. AND so were many other countries (there are at least 20 countries as far as i know that are in Iraq fighting alongside US troops) So, the President acted. Now we have captured Suddam Hussein, but however we did not find weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean that tbey are not there? No. For all we know Saddam could have given the weapons to some other terrorists as soon as the war started. Or it could be deep underground and only a select few know. Anyway, we went there to do a job, put peace in Iraq. And we haven't accomplished that mission. However we are making progress. However, if we did pull back, the constant motar attacks on our artillery, the men firing at our infantry, etc. will all go to the newly formed Iraqi government. They don't need a war on their streets at this point. I bet that if the U.S. pulled out, the Iraqi government would beg us to stay.

 

Well, there is my $0.02.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Master_Sentinel

No,

 

Now, I have been a Republican and I supported Bush at the election. And I still support him (however I am not old enough to vote). Bush went in there because he was informed by the U.S. Intelligence that there was a good chance that there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. AND so were many other countries (there are at least 20 countries as far as i know that are in Iraq fighting alongside US troops) So, the President acted.

If I remember, they didn't say good chances, they stated, "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" there is a major difference between good chance and a sure thing.

 

 

Originally posted by Master_Sentinel

Now we have captured Suddam Hussein, but however we did not find weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean that tbey are not there? No. For all we know Saddam could have given the weapons to some other terrorists as soon as the war started. Or it could be deep underground and only a select few know. Anyway, we went there to do a job, put peace in Iraq.

wrong, we went there because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction and were a threat to america, which they were not, IMHO. Capturing Saddam has nothing to do with why we went there. If Iraq has WMD's why not use them before we reached an attack position? If I had wmd's and was going to be attacked, you could bet I'd use em. I seriously doubt Saddam would pay good money for weapons only to get rid of them for free, it's just not in his character, especially the character america has made him out to be.

 

Originally posted by Master_Sentinel

And we haven't accomplished that mission.

Because that's not why we went in there, atleast when we declared war it wasn't.

 

Originally posted by Master_Sentinel

They don't need a war on their streets at this point.

But that's what they have right now. Lot's of gun fights are being held at the cities.

 

Originally posted by Master_Sentinel

I bet that if the U.S. pulled out, the Iraqi government would beg us to stay.

I'm gonna let this float by, and see what Skinwalker has to say, because I'm not to up to date on Iraq's "government"

 

Glad you sported your opinion, and in a calm cool manner.

[XERXES]

No, and im not explaining because every anti-war pansy is going to claim everything I say is false with the same "facts" that they have all be stating for a year now. So I'll just simply stick with my opinion.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

... that's... kind of weird logic, he makes a mistake and others should suffer for it?

 

I'm not sure if I should ask... *walks off confused*

 

Unfortunate but true. I mean, what else is there to do (besides leave Iraq, which may or may not improve the situation)

[ronbrothers]

Definately not. I truly support our troops being there. The anti-war fanatics simply cannot see the big picture. Saddam gave aid and comfort to terrorists and had a potential for supplying them with WMDs. How do I know that he had them? Because he's used them before on his own people and on the Iranians. Because Bill Clinton told us he did. Because Al Gore told us he did. Because John Kerry told us he did (in 2003!). Because France, Germany and Russia told us he did. The nay sayers don't want to acknowledge those facts because many of those statements were made during the previous administration. Saddam dug his own grave by not complying with the 14 United States resolutions and was given 11 years to do so.

[Tyrion]

I'm against the war, but we have to stay in there or else we'll create a bigger mess than before.

 

Definately not. I truly support our troops being there. The anti-war fanatics simply cannot see the big picture. Saddam gave aid and comfort to terrorists and had a potential for supplying them with WMDs. How do I know that he had them? Because he's used them before on his own people and on the Iranians. Because Bill Clinton told us he did. Because Al Gore told us he did. Because John Kerry told us he did (in 2003!). Because France, Germany and Russia told us he did. The nay sayers don't want to acknowledge those facts because many of those statements were made during the previous administration. Saddam dug his own grave by not complying with the 14 United States resolutions and was given 11 years to do so.

 

But they don't have WMD's now. Why would Saddam give away WMD's when he could use them against us?

 

And if we invade every country that breaks U.N. resolutions, then we'd have to invade ourselves just because of this war. Kinda ironic.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ronbrothers

Saddam gave aid and comfort to terrorists and had a potential for supplying them with WMDs.

 

That's a common fallacy. Actually, Saddam offered very little in the way of "aid and comfort to terrorists" and there was little danger of him giving WMDs away.

 

Originally posted by ronbrothers

How do I know that he had them? Because he's used them before on his own people and on the Iranians.

 

Another fallacy. The possibility did exist that he still had WMDs, but that data wasn't known with any empiricism. Certainly not enough to say it was "known." The best one can say is that he was suspected to have WMDs. In addition, there was no indication that Saddam would have transferred WMDs to other entities, certainly not terrorists, since his history indicated that he was selfish when it came to weapons technology. Moreover, science tells us that the WMDs that he was suspected of possessing were gone. The shelf life of anthrax in the best of conditions (refrigerated storage) is relatively short and as is the shelf life of the particular nerve agent that he was accused of possessing. These chemicals simply breakdown overtime. Those figures were posted elsewhere in this forum if you would like to search for "anthrax."

 

Originally posted by ronbrothers

The nay sayers don't want to acknowledge those facts because many of those statements were made during the previous administration.

 

I've no qualms about speaking out against Clinton/Gore... I didn't particularly care for either in regards to foreign policy. If I'm a "nay sayer," its only because I look at things with a skeptical eye. From my perspective, the Bush & Co. rank and file ignore empirical data in favor of ideology.

 

Originally posted by ronbrothers

Saddam dug his own grave by not complying with the 14 United States resolutions and was given 11 years to do so.

 

And the question goes on.... why haven't the other tyrannical leaders of the world been held to the same account? Iraq isn't the only country to recieve UN mandates, sanctions and resolutions and fail to follow through. The United States has its share that have been ignored. Who holds us accountable.

 

The bottom line is that Iraq was a threat to its nieghbors. The Iraqi government was a threat to its citizens. Many countries are and have been now and in the past. But the stated reason for entering Iraq wasn't even this threat, it was Iraq's WMD capability. Which, as it turns out, was a big, fat zero.

 

Now, our soldiers and marines (as well as U.S. civilian workers and entrepeneurs) are being killed and wounded on an almost daily basis. Terrorists, insurgents and anarchists have entered the country for the chance to kill Americans in their own part of the world. From their point of view, they are patriots. From ours, they're terrorists. The people caught in the middle are the very people we took the responsibility to liberate. Iraq has no government to speak of. No Army. No independent police or security force.

 

We can't leave. And yet, the longer we stay, the worse it will get. The only chance we have is to get as many other nations to send as many troops as possible now. But even that might not be possible. Our good will and position as a world leader is compromised.

[wassup]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

And yet, the longer we stay, the worse it will get.

 

Ironic, isn't it? And yet the Bush administration just keeps repeating the same old rhetoric of how the situation in Iraq is getting better, people are more free, etc., etc. Yet these stages of progress are only temporary and insecure, and can be completely wiped away with an upsurge in violence and conflict.

[toms]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

We can't leave. And yet, the longer we stay, the worse it will get. The only chance we have is to get as many other nations to send as many troops as possible now. But even that might not be possible. Our good will and position as a world leader is compromised.

 

Seems about right. Shame it is the people in iraq who are suffering though, caught in the middle of a war between external forces.

 

I wouldn't count on that many countries wanting to help out the US. THey have been leaning on countries for years now to help out, anyone who hasn't helped already is likely to be so pissed off now that they won't help in the future. Unless it is turned over to UN control, so they can try and sort out the US's mess.

[ronbrothers]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

The bottom line is that Iraq was a threat to its nieghbors. The Iraqi government was a threat to its citizens. Many countries are and have been now and in the past. But the stated reason for entering Iraq wasn't even this threat, it was Iraq's WMD capability. Which, as it turns out, was a big, fat zero.

 

And now we have both sarin and mustard gas found in Iraq ...

 

Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq

[SkinWalker]

Quote from the link above:

 

However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war

 

But assuming that the find(s) is(are) genuine, I sure hope the lives of so many servicemen and civilians weren't wasted on one 155 mm howitzer round of so-called WMD.

 

Morever, it's convenient that a WMD find is precisely the type of thing one would expect to bail Bush & co out (particularly Rumsfeld) at a point in time where the credibility of the adminstration is being severly questioned.

 

Face it. We blundered. We need to admit it, fix it as best we can, and carry on with our lives. Then endeavor to not repeat the mistakes in the future.

[ronbrothers]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Quote from the link above:

 

Morever, it's convenient that a WMD find is precisely the type of thing one would expect to bail Bush & co out (particularly Rumsfeld) at a point in time where the credibility of the adminstration is being severly questioned.

 

 

Ha ha! I knew it... here come the black helicopter theories...

[SkinWalker]

No black helicopters from me, Buba.

 

But I will say that with the lies and disinformation that has been apparent from the Bush admin to date, there is little to trust from them now.

 

I'm skeptical of the existance of an actual binary sarin round for a couple of reasons:

 

1) The type that were in use by Saddam were of the kind that needed to be filled by jerry can just prior to use (by some poor sod), which made them dangerous to handle.

 

2) While the shelf life of sarin is increased by use of a binary agent rather than a unitary one, the shelf life is still limited severely. Mustard gas is stable for years, but the chemicals used in sarin are volatile and HCl is often a by product (that's HydroChloric acid, BTW).

 

So while you sit back and merely accept whatever the Bush admin tells you, I choose to engage the critical thinking of science and ask questions.

 

That's a far cry from making unfounded claims of conspiracy and shadow governments necessary for "black helicopters." Besides, I don't think the Bush admin has the intelligence to sustain such a complex conspiracy. They couldn't even keep the torture of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. military a secret.

[wassup]

How do we know that the sarin gas was not smuggled into Iraq after the US invasion? With Iraq in disarray and without proper security, i imagine it would not have been very hard to smuggle some of the chemical into Iraq, especially such a small amount like the one that was recovered.

[toms]

it sounds like one, very old, shell.

It had been rigged by millitants, so who knows where they got it from. It may have been lying around unexploded frm the iran iraq war, it may have come from outside, or it may have come from a hidden stockpile. No one can know yet.

 

However, if it came from a hidden stockpile, it can't have been well hidden if the insurgents found it. Which tends to imply they just found it lying around. Which probably means there isn't some "big secret".

 

Anyway, it is a very short range battlefield weapon which is (A) not what most people think of when they hear WMD (B) not what we were lead to believe bush meant by WMD © of no danger to us, or anyone else that isn't in or very near iraq.

 

That cult in tokyo had more sarin, and any fool can make mustard gas.

 

I'd hardly say it was a big deal either way.

[ronbrothers]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

 

That's a far cry from making unfounded claims of conspiracy and shadow governments necessary for "black helicopters." Besides, I don't think the Bush admin has the intelligence to sustain such a complex conspiracy. They couldn't even keep the torture of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. military a secret.

 

 

Just what exactly are your sources indicating that the Bush administration tried to keep torture of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. a military secret?

 

I would ask instead why 14 members of Congress including 11 Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee waited until now to express "outrage" and "shock" when they were informed months ago .

 

Take a look:

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040517/D82K20980.html

[ronbrothers]

Originally posted by wassup

How do we know that the sarin gas was not smuggled into Iraq after the US invasion? With Iraq in disarray and without proper security, i imagine it would not have been very hard to smuggle some of the chemical into Iraq, especially such a small amount like the one that was recovered.

 

I'd concede that this is a possibility. I will not accept that it did not originate from Saddam, though. I believe that it is very possible that what wmd's he might have had could have been sent out of the county to friendly neighbors such as Syria. Now these terrorists and insurgents could have smuggled some back into the country. If that is the case, our troops still have the threat of these weapons --however sporadic they may be-- as in this case. One cannister is just as deadly as two. In this case, the chemicals did not have the opportunity to mix properly.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ronbrothers

I will not accept that it did not originate from Saddam, though. I believe that it is very possible that what wmd's he might have had could have been sent out of the county to friendly neighbors such as Syria.

 

That's the problem. Too much foreign policy and political decision-making occurring in this nation based on belief systems rather than empirical evidence.

 

And I never said the Bush admin tried to keep it a secret. That's just it. There was no OpSec involved.

 

Those that blindly support Bush because he talks tough want to believe Saddam & co were trying to hide WMDs or store them or use them or whatever. Anything and everything but mostly have gotten rid of them. That fits the belief system. That justifies the war.

 

Personally, I hope they find a huge stockpile. I'd like nothing better for the world to say, "oops."

[toms]

any word yet on whether that wedding party they bombed was actually a wedding party, or a load of terrorists as the US claims?

 

It's got to the stage where you have no idea who to believe anymore...

 

I think the worst thing possible now would be for them to fnd huge piles of weapons (not that i don't BELIEVE they might exist). Can you imagine the "i told you so" power trip that would put bush & blair on for the next few years?

[ronbrothers]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

That's the problem. Too much foreign policy and political decision-making occurring in this nation based on belief systems rather than empirical evidence.

 

And I never said the Bush admin tried to keep it a secret. That's just it. There was no OpSec involved.

 

Those that blindly support Bush because he talks tough want to believe Saddam & co were trying to hide WMDs or store them or use them or whatever. Anything and everything but mostly have gotten rid of them. That fits the belief system. That justifies the war.

 

Personally, I hope they find a huge stockpile. I'd like nothing better for the world to say, "oops."

 

Me too. But you are parsing my statement past what I meant. Believing is perfectly okay in even the most critical circumstances. For example, if you told me that you thought my mother was a stinking pig, you'd probably believe that I'd take offense at that. Even though you do not know me personally or have no empirical evidence that I personally have been upset over that before, you would probably believe that I would based on your past experiences with other like individuals.

 

 

You know, I am really beginning to enjoy debating you, because you can actually spell.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Master_Sentinel

However, if we did pull back, the constant motar attacks on our artillery, the men firing at our infantry, etc. will all go to the newly formed Iraqi government. They don't need a war on their streets at this point. I bet that if the U.S. pulled out, the Iraqi government would beg us to stay.

 

I think that the first sentence is right and the 2nd wrong.

 

No, and im not explaining because every anti-war pansy is going to claim everything I say is false with the same "facts" that they have all be stating for a year now.

 

I smell smoke...

 

The anti-war fanatics simply cannot see the big picture.

 

I still smell smoke...

 

Saddam gave aid and comfort to terrorists and had a potential for supplying them with WMDs.

 

Bull****. Hussein was not exactly on speaking terms with the al Qaeda. Besides, it runs contrary to his best interests. Such weapons could potentially be traced back to him, after which Iraq would be a glow-in-the-dark-country after exactly 30 minutes.

 

How do I know that he had them? Because he's used them before on his own people and on the Iranians. Because Bill Clinton told us he did. Because Al Gore told us he did. Because John Kerry told us he did (in 2003!). Because France, Germany and Russia told us he did.

 

Sheesh. If he has WMD, then the inspectors would have found them. It might have taken a few more months, it might have taken a few years, but do you really, honestly believe that it's possible to hide a significant quantity of WMD forever with a bunch of snoops in the country?

 

Oh, and you forgot one thing: Pentagon has the reciepts, because the WMD you talk about were sold to him by dubya's dad.

 

One thing that many people (both Democrats and Republicans) tend to forget is that WMD have a 'best before' date stamped on them just like any other consumer good. 11 years old WMD aren't likely to be useful anymore.

 

Saddam dug his own grave by not complying with the 14 United States resolutions and was given 11 years to do so.

 

But, fortunately for them, Israel has the support of a permanent memeber of the UNSC, which generously covers their grave every time they dig it...

 

And now we have both sarin and mustard gas found in Iraq ...

 

For the record, that was a detector spike, not an actual contamination.

 

Just what exactly are your sources indicating that the Bush administration tried to keep torture of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. a military secret?

 

The scale of the abuse indicates that the Pentagon knew something. Since it wasn't exactly the Pentagon that published the pictures, one can infer that they would have tried to cover it up.

 

I would ask instead why 14 members of Congress including 11 Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee waited until now to express "outrage" and "shock" when they were informed months ago

 

Duh, they did. As did the Read Cross, and Amnisty International.

 

Just what exactly are your sources indicating that the Bush administration tried to keep torture of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. a military secret?

 

Simple inferrence: The scale of the atrocities means that the Pentagon most likely knew about it. Since they didn't publish it, it means that they held it back.

 

I believe that it is very possible that what wmd's he might have had could have been sent out of the county to friendly neighbors such as Syria.

 

I don't. It seems unlikely to me that a person as paranoid and autocratic as Hussein would hand over his WMD to a foreign power, knowing full well that said foreign power might steal them and/or use them against him in the future.

 

Personally, I hope they find a huge stockpile. I'd like nothing better for the world to say, "oops."

 

I see where you're coming from, but such a find wouldn't change the fact that the war was illegal and illegitimate. Besides, you'd have every terrorist, insurgent, criminal, and low-life in Iraq swarming all over such a stash like bees on a doughnut in no time flat.

 

EDIT: I suddenly realized that I haven't answered the original question: No, I don't think that the US should pull out. But I think that the US will pull out. Because staying long enough for a stable, nonfundamentalistic power structure to form is gonna cost a truckload of dead American soldiers. And I don't believe that the American voters are prepared to sacrifice a couple of thousand American lives to save a couple of hundred thousand Iraqi lives.